Hey SGB, have you ever spoken with Sweetpumper about your sighting?.....He too seemed to have an identical experience to yourself......

also excuse me but I dont recall, have you ever spoken in detail about your sighting here at UM?

Sweetpumper's was more like an encounter than sighting . But yes, the UFOs seemed to be of similar class. Yes I have mentioned it in another thread. Basically, my brother and I saw two round objects that appeared metallic. Just imagine a passenger jet flying overhead, but instead of an elongated shape, it's round. That's how far they appeared to be. These two sphere were flying in a straight line, one behind the other in complete silence. when they fly in this straight line, the speed was about a regular plane flying really high that we normally see. All of a sudden, they both zigzag(turn left, right, left, right a few time). They were in perfect synchronization while doing the zigzag maneuvers. When they zigzagged, the speed was much, much faster than when they were flying straight. They basically make 90 degree turn many time. Just connect the dots below and you can see how they moved. The dots doesn't represent the crafts itself, just the pattern of their movement. Both spheres moved in the exact same manner and the distance between the two stayed consistent throughout. After all these, they just went up higher and higher and out of sight.

A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.
Albert Einstein

Posted 18 April 2013 - 08:40 AM

SwampgasBalloonBoy, on 18 April 2013 - 05:14 AM, said:

Sweetpumper's was more like an encounter than sighting . But yes, the UFOs seemed to be of similar class. Yes I have mentioned it in another thread. Basically, my brother and I saw two round objects that appeared metallic. Just imagine a passenger jet flying overhead, but instead of an elongated shape, it's round. That's how far they appeared to be. These two sphere were flying in a straight line, one behind the other in complete silence. when they fly in this straight line, the speed was about a regular plane flying really high that we normally see. All of a sudden, they both zigzag(turn left, right, left, right a few time). They were in perfect synchronization while doing the zigzag maneuvers. When they zigzagged, the speed was much, much faster than when they were flying straight. They basically make 90 degree turn many time. Just connect the dots below and you can see how they moved. The dots doesn't represent the crafts itself, just the pattern of their movement. Both spheres moved in the exact same manner and the distance between the two stayed consistent throughout. After all these, they just went up higher and higher and out of sight.

* * * *
* * *

fascinating...cheers for the insight.

for the record can you explain why you didnt record it on your 'phone'? I think I know why...or at least know why I wouldnt, but just want to collect some real cases/reasons....to tackle the future question of 'there are over 6 biilion phones with cameras so why......''

for the record can you explain why you didnt record it on your 'phone'? I think I know why...or at least know why I wouldnt, but just want to collect some real cases/reasons....to tackle the future question of 'there are over 6 biilion phones with cameras so why......''

Because you don't or can't stop watching. It happens too fast. As I've said before, you don't see this often, and the last thing you want to do is fumble for your phone and end up missing it. That, and the fact that anyone can fake a photo nowadays, it wouldn't matter if the photo was genuine or not. Plus, I use Photoshop everyday, which wouldn't help my case. Plus, without seeing it in person, it doesn't matter. You can't convey a sighting like this. It's almost impossible to believe without witnessing it yourself.

"At it's most basic level, science is supposed to represent the investigation of the unexplained, not the explanation of the uninvestigated." - Hunt for the Skinwalker

"The ultimate irony of the Disclosure movement is that it deeply distrusts officialdom, while simultaneously looking to officialdom for the truth." - Robbie Graham Silver Screen Saucers

A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.
Albert Einstein

Posted 18 April 2013 - 03:01 PM

Sweetpumper, on 18 April 2013 - 02:54 PM, said:

Because you don't or can't stop watching. It happens too fast. As I've said before, you don't see this often, and the last thing you want to do is fumble for your phone and end up missing it. That, and the fact that anyone can fake a photo nowadays, it wouldn't matter if the photo was genuine or not. Plus, I use Photoshop everyday, which wouldn't help my case. Plus, without seeing it in person, it doesn't matter. You can't convey a sighting like this. It's almost impossible to believe without witnessing it yourself.

and that my friend is the answer I thought would be given.......makes perfect sense to me that fumbling for your phone and trying to switch it to camera etc etc would/could mean you miss the sighting.......I know I would not want to take my eyes off it....and if like most sightings they occur for under 1 minute this for me makes it highly likely a majority think like you do...I know I would do the same. I would imagine you spend the first thirty seconds doing double takes as your brain is saying 'come on what is it...maybe a plane etc etc'

and that my friend is the answer I thought would be given.......makes perfect sense to me that fumbling for your phone and trying to switch it to camera etc etc would/could mean you miss the sighting.......I know I would not want to take my eyes off it....and if like most sightings they occur for under 1 minute this for me makes it highly likely a majority think like you do...I know I would do the same. I would imagine you spend the first thirty seconds doing double takes as your brain is saying 'come on what is it...maybe a plane etc etc'

It does make sense, but not for 100% of cases I would think. Some people claim long duration sightings, anything over 5 minutes should be possible to capture, and it seems rather suspicious that all footage is grainy.

Things are what they are. - MeReality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - CapeoIf I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac NewtonLet me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed StewartYoutube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research. There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - ChrlzsNothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who

Proud Member of the Geriatric Squadron
Proud Member of the Thinking Class

Posted 18 April 2013 - 11:40 PM

psyche101, on 18 April 2013 - 11:28 PM, said:

It does make sense, but not for 100% of cases I would think. Some people claim long duration sightings, anything over 5 minutes should be possible to capture, and it seems rather suspicious that all footage is grainy.

Considering the zoom and autofocus capabilities of modern cameras, I find it difficult to understand as well. Even with manual focus, there is no real excuse for not having clear video or photos. Against that, though, if it's too clear then people will label a photo or video as fake because of the clarity. The folks who've done so much to fake both have made it difficult for anyone who may have legitimate photographic evidence to offer.

Whirled Infamous Author and all around really strange personNot a complete idiot. Some pieces are missing.One of UM's Happy Mutants

Where does one get certified as an "Ancient Astronaut Theorist" or "Cryptozoologist"?

Posted 19 April 2013 - 12:09 AM

quillius, on 17 April 2013 - 08:14 AM, said:

I agree that they spike in sightings certainly were because of the cold war and new tech/weaponary. However this could simply mean the spike occured because of 'misinterpretations' that were far more possible OR its the reason the curiosity of our ET friends peaked again resulting in increase in sightings.....maybe a combination of both

as for the following comment 'Then the close encounter stories could simply be overactive imaginations which later fueled the dubious to make some money'

I dont know about that, I think we have a few cases that suggest it cannot be an over active imagination.. ..at least not without the aid of an induced hallucination.

oh and the editing....I agree with Kludge in that it did somehow make sense and it made me smile for some strange reason..

The abduction thing has never been believable to me. For every story there seems to be ample doubt as to its authenticity. Believers always inject unknowable ideas as to why there are holes in the stories instead of looking at known human nature and the imperfections of our brains. The abductees may believe their own stories (i.e. they passed a lie detector test) but that does exclude the possibility of prosaic things like mental illness, whether temporary or not. I did not put this in my original post because so many people get offended when you state that they simply could be koo-koo for coco puffs or simply lying. Remember as much as some go on about the stigma there is a great deal of attention to be gained even by being an object of ridicule As a society a great deal of people seemingly enjoy watch human train wrecks (reality TV for example). There are a myriad of mental illnesses that could account for a large percentage of the famous cases that would NOT render the person to be a drooling psychotic mushroom.

These possibilities are infinitely more likely than beings travelling across the vast distance of space to 'probe' us in ships that do not resemble anything futuristic. We have the technology, or are quickly on the way to, to simulate most biological systems....why would these super advanced beings need to operate on us like we would have 50 or 100 years ago?

Where does one get certified as an "Ancient Astronaut Theorist" or "Cryptozoologist"?

Posted 19 April 2013 - 12:15 AM

Kludge808, on 18 April 2013 - 11:40 PM, said:

Considering the zoom and autofocus capabilities of modern cameras, I find it difficult to understand as well. Even with manual focus, there is no real excuse for not having clear video or photos. Against that, though, if it's too clear then people will label a photo or video as fake because of the clarity. The folks who've done so much to fake both have made it difficult for anyone who may have legitimate photographic evidence to offer.

It certainly is true that these things can be created convincingly with CGI on a typical desktop PC these days but that does not account for the complete lack of virtually any at all. This is one area I have some knowledge about, CGI that is.

These are the programs I am familiar with (not an expert by any means thought): Lightwave, Modo 701, Zbrush, Photoshop, Marmoset and several others I cannot recall at the moment.

Where does one get certified as an "Ancient Astronaut Theorist" or "Cryptozoologist"?

Posted 19 April 2013 - 12:20 AM

Sweetpumper, on 18 April 2013 - 02:54 PM, said:

Because you don't or can't stop watching. It happens too fast. As I've said before, you don't see this often, and the last thing you want to do is fumble for your phone and end up missing it. That, and the fact that anyone can fake a photo nowadays, it wouldn't matter if the photo was genuine or not. Plus, I use Photoshop everyday, which wouldn't help my case. Plus, without seeing it in person, it doesn't matter. You can't convey a sighting like this. It's almost impossible to believe without witnessing it yourself.

I agree with what you are saying but given the vast number of sightings you would think someone would snap a clear photo. It actually hurts the point that apparently these things are only seen by one or two individuals and never masses of people. If masses had seen them then you would expect some clear video/photos.The meteor in Russia is a good example. It was a short event and look at how many cameras captured that. You would think with all those dash cams running every time people hop in their cars something would have been captured and likely by more than one vehicle. Just an example of modern tech NOT finding UFO's...let alone alien space ships. JMO.

for the record can you explain why you didnt record it on your 'phone'? I think I know why...or at least know why I wouldnt, but just want to collect some real cases/reasons....to tackle the future question of 'there are over 6 biilion phones with cameras so why......''

Mine was in 1992. Beepers was popular back then . But yeah, I think it would be easily dismissed as another grainy video even if it happened today. It was quite high and phone camera can't zoom very far with good quality. With all the video that we see now, I am sure there are some genuine ones. The million dollar question is which is real and which is fake.

It does make sense, but not for 100% of cases I would think. Some people claim long duration sightings, anything over 5 minutes should be possible to capture, and it seems rather suspicious that all footage is grainy.

These longer duratation sightibgs are much more rare. My own was around 17 mins in 2002 but back then I didnt own a cellphone. So what are talking about then, just sightings from the last say 5-6 years when it might be reasonable to assume most people had a cellphone capable of taking pictures. Its really not a long time and past studies suggest the phenomena is prone to peaks and lulls. The last few years could be a slow period for the phenomena.

Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you. - Friedrich Nietzsche

These longer duratation sightibgs are much more rare. My own was around 17 mins in 2002 but back then I didnt own a cellphone. So what are talking about then, just sightings from the last say 5-6 years when it might be reasonable to assume most people had a cellphone capable of taking pictures. Its really not a long time and past studies suggest the phenomena is prone to peaks and lulls. The last few years could be a slow period for the phenomena.

17 mins...Wow. Mine was less than 30 secs. I don't believe I had a chance to hear about your sighting, LS. If you don't mine, could you describe it again? thanks.

These longer duratation sightibgs are much more rare. My own was around 17 mins in 2002 but back then I didnt own a cellphone. So what are talking about then, just sightings from the last say 5-6 years when it might be reasonable to assume most people had a cellphone capable of taking pictures. Its really not a long time and past studies suggest the phenomena is prone to peaks and lulls. The last few years could be a slow period for the phenomena.

We do get some pictures, though, and they seem to indicate UAP photographed are not solid craft.

Do you not find it strange that every single picture is blurry though? The last 5 or 6 years is about right for cell phones, but cameras started to get cheap around the year 2000. What we do know is that natural phenomena such as Min Min or Hessdalen produce captures such as:

And the UFO photos of alleged alien spaceships look like:

It seems to me that we are getting the photo's, but not the ones people say we should be getting, which when described should look like this:

When it comes down to 100% of Alien claims produce nothing, but UAP claims produce an obvious light effect, you have to wonder.

Edited by psyche101, 19 April 2013 - 02:57 AM.

Things are what they are. - MeReality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - CapeoIf I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac NewtonLet me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed StewartYoutube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research. There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - ChrlzsNothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who